Which Nikon film scanner?

[pioe[rmv]]

"Upgrade every time a new development comes along"? I am still using
Windows 98SE here, and the only reason I upgraded to that was because
Windows95 was incompatible with the driver for my photo quality printer
when I bought that. Fortunately I upgraded two levels in one step
because W98SE supports firewire (which W98 doesn't) otherwise I would
have been faced with another OS upgrade when I bought my LS-4000
scanner. Upgrades are often forced on you when you try to do new things
whether you like it or not, and it is very likely that you will need to
upgrade more than once in the coming decade - unless you intend to do
*exactly* the same things in 10 years time as you are doing today.

I have repeatedly experienced that even if /new/ functions typically
require new hardware, there are a lot of tasks which I do in the same
way as eight years ago when I acquired my first computer. For these
tasks that are the same, there is every reason to keep the equipment. If
we are talking about new things, it naturally is a different matter.
What I did was to state that if one has bought a set of tools for a
defined task or a number of tasks, these tools will be useful as long as
the type of work done is itself useful. That is more often than we
think. By the way, I am using Windows 95, 2000 and Linux on two
different machines, the second machine is set up with dual boot
Win2k/Linux. The Windows 95 machine retains its usefulness.

The largest supplier of black and white photographic material worldwide
was until a few years ago, Ilford. I am fairly confident that the
recent demise of the Ilford film company will see the already high
relative cost of black and white materials rise as the remaining few
suppliers exploit their improved near monopoly position. This has
already happened with instant film stock following the demise of the
original Polaroid company a few years ago. It is only a matter of time
until one of the remaining big three go the same way. As to who goes
first, place your bets now...

We will no doubt see that a reduction of available types of film. Still
I believe we are going to have access to the basic slide and negative
films in the future too. However, one-hour labs may largely disappear,
and those living in remote areas and small towns may need to send their
films to larger towns for development because the number of serious film
laboratories will be smaller.

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

I have repeatedly experienced that even if /new/ functions typically
require new hardware, there are a lot of tasks which I do in the same
way as eight years ago when I acquired my first computer. For these
tasks that are the same, there is every reason to keep the equipment.

Is there? If you can afford the space to keep that old clutter then I
might agree. However you can only use one computer at a time so I see
no reason to run more than one - and that needs to be able to do all the
tasks you require of it. My old crap####computer was donated to a local
school and I am sure it gives the kids there endless hours of fun
playing games and possibly even learning a little about photography and
scanning - the hard way! With luck, a few may go on to appreciate the
advantages of newer film scanner facilities.

We will no doubt see that a reduction of available types of film. Still
I believe we are going to have access to the basic slide and negative
films in the future too.

I have no doubt that film will continue to be available for some years
yet and I am certainly not predicting its imminent demise, however I
suspect that even you will have moved on from what will have become an
archaic medium in a few years time - well before any of the scanners you
are considering (even the Minolta lamp) reach the end of their working
life.

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

Personally I find it rash to take the eventual death of film to be a
foregone conclusion, and tend to believe that we will se one more
instance of an old media living side by side with the new.

Indeed there will be, but general photography on 35mm media is unlikely
to be one of them.

Consequently, I bought a brand new and all manual Nikkor 35mm 2.0 AI
earlier this summer. Soon I will purchase a FM3 to accompany my old and
reliable FM2, and I look forward to many happy years and decades of
film use.

Best of luck - probably for years, unlikely to be decades.

As an aside; I shoot digital as well.

As an aside, I don't - yet. ;-)

 

[pioe[rmv]]

I have no doubt that film will continue to be available for some years
yet and I am certainly not predicting its imminent demise, however I
suspect that even you will have moved on from what will have become an
archaic medium in a few years time - well before any of the scanners you
are considering (even the Minolta lamp) reach the end of their working
life.

Whereas there can be little doubt about the general dominance of
direct digital capture due to its advantages which are the immediacy
of result and its doing away with the extra complication of film
purchase and processing, the long-term destiny of film and film based
photography may not be as gloomy as many think. Personally I find it
rash to take the eventual death of film to be a foregone conclusion,
and tend to believe that we will se one more instance of an old media
living side by side with the new.

Consequently, I bought a brand new and all manual Nikkor 35mm 2.0 AI
earlier this summer. Soon I will purchase a FM3 to accompany my old
and reliable FM2, and I look forward to many happy years and decades
of film use.

As an aside; I shoot digital as well.

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway

 

[Hecate]

Personally I find it rash to take the eventual death of film to be a
foregone conclusion, and tend to believe that we will se one more
instance of an old media living side by side with the new.

Indeed there will be, but general photography on 35mm media is unlikely
to be one of them.

Yes. FWIW, I think film will survive for quite a while, but only in
the larger medium format (.e. 6x6 and upwards) and large format
arenas.

As an aside, I don't - yet. ;-)

Nor me. But I'm not buying any more film cameras. My next purchase is
likely to be a Canon 20D. (If I could afford it, it would be 1D and
then I'd give up on film completely <g>).

 

[David J. Littleboy]

If you mean "mainstream" photography I of course agree. The majority
will shoot digital. We do not know how many the film shooters will be,
but I guess they will be a larger minority than one might think.

With the advent of the 8MP 20D, 35mm is essentially pointless. Even at 6MP,
35mm has the problem that if one needs better than 6MP, 35mm isn't enough
better to meet those needs: if you really need better than 6MP, you need MF
or LF.

So film already only makes sense in medium and large format.

And even medium format is problematic. I find that my best Nikon 8000 scans
of 645 Provia have a tad more detail than the 1Ds images I've downloaded.
(Or maybe I'm dreaming: no one else sees that<g>. But film makes gorgeous
prints at enlargements of 8x and under, so I _should_ be seeing that, even
if I'm not.) And 6x7 is only 1.3x larger than 645. (At the A4 aspect ratio,
35mm = 24x34, 645 = 39x56, 6x7 = 48x68, and 6x9 = 56x80*.)

If 12 and 16MP full-frame dSLRs become affordable (and liftable<g>) medium
format itsef will be squeezed into a tiny niche: if you really need better
than 16MP dSLR digital, 6x7 won't be enough better meet your needs: you'll
need large format.

*: But there aren't any 6x9 cameras. I was vaguely considering picking up a
used Fuji GW690 or GSW690, but Fuji cancelled the camera and there are none
in any of the many used stores in Tokyo. All the used stores have a waiting
list on them. Oops.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

 

[pioe[rmv]]

Indeed there will be, but general photography on 35mm media is unlikely
to be one of them.

If you mean "mainstream" photography I of course agree. The majority
will shoot digital. We do not know how many the film shooters will be,
but I guess they will be a larger minority than one might think.

Best of luck - probably for years, unlikely to be decades.

I see little reason why I would not continue with film for a very long
time.

As an aside, I don't - yet. ;-)

You should do. I am sure you have tried it, though.

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

As an aside; I shoot digital as well.

As an aside, I don't - yet. ;-)

Nor me. But I'm not buying any more film cameras. My next purchase is
likely to be a Canon 20D. (If I could afford it, it would be 1D and
then I'd give up on film completely <g>).

That's pretty much the same thoughts as I have. While film is easy to
find and process though I don't feel much pressure to ditch my existing
systems.

I still use Olympus OM kit and, boy, don't those digital SLRs look
enormously bulky by comparison. A 10Mp near full frame DSLR the size of
an OM-4Ti body would have a huge market, well at least me. ;-)

I did seriously look at modifying an OM back to take a Philips FTF-3020C
6Mp full frame CCD a could of years ago, but couldn't figure out an easy
way of getting the chip to sit on the optical focal plane without
fouling the shutter mechanism. At least there is an adapter to let the
Canon digital range accept my OM optics.

 

[Joe Cash]

however I

suspect that even you will have moved on from what will have become an
archaic medium in a few years time - well before any of the scanners you
are considering (even the Minolta lamp) reach the end of their working
life.

Film as an archaic medium ?

Digital camera sales will start to level off in a couple of years and
film camera will continue to co-exist, in reduced numbers. And camera
makers are still adding new film cameras to their lines. New film camera
models will be shown at Photokina this year.

As for film, there will be market consolidation in the near future. But
there are several small film producers that will continue to co-exist
with giant Fuji and Lucky Film of China. Less and less cameras store
will carry film and in a few years they will be forced out of business
by the large surface stores and chains.

The main channel of film and film chemicals distribution will be changed
and will probably be taken up by internet sales in a niche market. Abd
dont worry if Kodak or Ilford go belly up. There are lots of players
waiting in the wings. And their products are just as good or better.
Sure film choices will be reduced, but I can only but one film in my camera.

So, for the great masses, film will be considered obsolete, just like
people who see 120 size film think that these are leftover from ancient
time and failing to comprehend that its still being manufactured today.

Film as an archaic medium ? Absolutely not. In a few years, it will
attain some kind of status symbol, especially for those doing b&w, to
differentiate them from the Wal-Mart mentality of digicam owners.

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

however I

Film as an archaic medium ?

It will be - it is heading that way already.

So, for the great masses, film will be considered obsolete, just like
people who see 120 size film think that these are leftover from ancient
time and failing to comprehend that its still being manufactured today.

What you ignore is that 120 exists *because* it offered technical
benefits over 35mm or other small format used by the consumers, that
enabled the professional to provide a superior product to what the man
on the street achieved with his P&S. However, when the professional
uses digital focal planes to achieve the high performance results there
will be no market at all to support the existence of 120-format and,
since you have already conceded that the consumer market has been lost
to the digital medium, the same applies to most medium and small film
formats. We are already at the stage where that performance standard
has been met and are simply on the downward economic driven slope until
film, in a conventional photographic context, ceases to be a viable
medium. The demise will be delayed for larger formats, but even they
will disappear as chips designed to be "buttable" come out of the
foundries. In less than a decade, film will be as much a curiosity as
the Daguerreotype, Calotype, gum bichromate or beer & albumen processes
currently are.

To quote a townsman of my origin: "Nae man can tether time nor tide."

 

[pioe[rmv]]

With the advent of the 8MP 20D, 35mm is essentially pointless. Even at 6MP,
35mm has the problem that if one needs better than 6MP, 35mm isn't enough
better to meet those needs: if you really need better than 6MP, you need MF
or LF.

It may be a little risky to judge the capability of the 20D before we
have seen what results can be obtained by skilled photographers using
it. What I can say based on my own experience, is that my present 10D
is not good enough for landscape and nature shots, but its quality is
preferable to film for macro and portraits.

It seems not improbable that the 1D II will perform considerably
better than the 20D, because its pixels are bigger.

I have seen the output from the 1D II, since this camera was recently
bought by a friend of mine. I have stored many of his files on my
computer, and by analyzing these files it became clear that this
camera is clearly superior to my 10D. Whether it is also better than
35mm film for landscapes I would not judge until I have tested the 1D
II against my film camera in a direct comparison.

So film already only makes sense in medium and large format.

I do not share that opinion if we are talking 6 mp digital at APS
sensor size, but 8 mp on a bigger sensor chip may be a different matter.

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway

 

[Joe Cash]

It will be - it is heading that way already.

Nope. It will become another option. I wont be archaic because you say
so or you wont be using it. There are still people doing other
processes. None of them are obsolete.

What you ignore is that 120 exists *because* it offered technical
benefits over 35mm or other small format used by the consumers, that
enabled the professional to provide a superior product to what the man
on the street achieved with his P&S.

Wrong. I use 120 size b&w film and been doing so since the past 20
years. Have used 6x7, 6x6 and 6x45 camera.

However, when the professional

uses digital focal planes to achieve the high performance results

High performance results ? You've got to be kidding me. An old mf folder
with modern film plus an Epson flatbed scanner can still beat the heck
out of many dslr in terms of image quality at size where the dslr wont
even go. Many galleries and their clients still want real prints on real
paper. To them anyting digital is cheap. Hey, maybe you can change their
mind with your digital prints!!!

there

will be no market at all to support the existence of 120-format and,
since you have already conceded that the consumer market has been lost
to the digital medium, the same applies to most medium and small film
formats.

The market will consolidate, shrink but not disappear. And contrary to
what you've been saying here, and I must protest your lack of vision,
negatives are not obsolete.

In less than a decade, film will be as much a curiosity as

the Daguerreotype, Calotype, gum bichromate or beer & albumen processes
currently are.

Hey, there are still people learning to print on plates!!! These are not
your WalMart mentality digicam users!!!

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

Nope. It will become another option. I wont be archaic because you say
so or you wont be using it. There are still people doing other
processes. None of them are obsolete.

English Lesson #1: archaic is not obsolete. You will become archaic
whether I say so or not, but you are already demonstrating your
obsolescence.

Wrong. I use 120 size b&w film and been doing so since the past 20
years. Have used 6x7, 6x6 and 6x45 camera.

And this demonstrates what precisely - other than the fact that you can
take advantage of a medium kept alive by professionals. Once
professionals have no need of it, you will not have that option.

High performance results ? You've got to be kidding me. An old mf
folder with modern film plus an Epson flatbed scanner can still beat
the heck out of many dslr in terms of image quality at size where the
dslr wont even go.

Many, but certainly not all. That is the current situation. Digital
backs for Hassies are old hat, and it would take more than your Epson
scanner to beat those with film.

Many galleries and their clients still want real prints on real paper.
To them anyting digital is cheap. Hey, maybe you can change their mind
with your digital prints!!!

Many galleries will not accept photographs at all, it needs to be oil
painting or nothing. Your point with this argument is what?

Hey, there are still people learning to print on plates!!! These are
not your WalMart mentality digicam users!!!

Nobody is "learning to print on plates" except in your imagination
because nobody ever did "print on plates" - people printed from plates!
It may surprise you that I still do, but that has nothing to do with
general photography!

 

[Hecate]

Archaic yes, but not obsolete. I think it will become a fine art
medium niche market, particularly in B&W (I have yet to see any
digital camera, with whatever Photoshop processing you care to
mention, that has anything like the qualities of Tri-X. For this
film, the grain structure *makes* the image, IMHO). I do it see film
dying out fairly rapidly for most colour work, except landscapes
(because digital still has a bit of a problem with large areas of
continuous tone, such as sky - thought from what I've seen of the
Canon 1Ds, that problem won't be around for very long).

 

[Joe Cash]

English Lesson #1: archaic is not obsolete. You will become archaic
whether I say so or not, but you are already demonstrating your
obsolescence.

Getting testy are we ? Keep you cool old man!

And this demonstrates what precisely - other than the fact that you can
take advantage of a medium kept alive by professionals.

That day is very far away. Now were seeing people abandonning digital
and going back to film. Others are buying a film camera to complement
their dslr

Once

professionals have no need of it, you will not have that option.

Well, a lot of people trying to earn a living in photography call
themselves professionals. In fact, most of them are just technicians.

Many, but certainly not all. That is the current situation. Digital
backs for Hassies are old hat,

Wrong. Imacon is providing state of the art digital back for Hassies.

and it would take more than your Epson

scanner to beat those with film.

Wrong again. I do not have an Epson scanner. You make a lot of
assumption don't you.

Many galleries will not accept photographs at all, it needs to be oil
painting or nothing. Your point with this argument is what?

You are seeing the demise of the film camera and digital output is far
from being widely accepted except for the great masses. How long do you
suppose it will take for digital prints to be considered real prints ?
10, 15 or 20 years ?

Nobody is "learning to print on plates" except in your imagination
because nobody ever did "print on plates" - people printed from plates!
It may surprise you that I still do, but that has nothing to do with
general photography!

I suspect you get of kick out of that. Is this how you get your thrills ?

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

Getting testy are we ? Keep you cool old man!

Simply stating facts - something you are apparently unfamiliar.

That day is very far away. Now were seeing people abandonning digital
and going back to film. Others are buying a film camera to complement
their dslr

Where is the evidence for your statement? Other than students buying
kit as course material and people looking for a "backup" body nobody
seems to be buying small and mid format film cameras at all.

Wrong. Imacon is providing state of the art digital back for Hassies.

So what? Canon make state of the art DSLRs, but digital cameras have
been around for ages. Your example only reinforces my argument rather
than refuting the statement, which is correct: Digital backs for
Hasselblad bodies are old hat.

and it would take more than your Epson
Wrong again. I do not have an Epson scanner. You make a lot of
assumption don't you.

No, *YOU* made the initial reference to Epson, I replied to it.

You are seeing the demise of the film camera and digital output is far
from being widely accepted except for the great masses. How long do you
suppose it will take for digital prints to be considered real prints ?
10, 15 or 20 years ?

In many cases, 0 seconds. Most organisations using photographic media,
including many galleries, now accept digital prints as no different from
chemical prints as we speak.

I suspect you get of kick out of that. Is this how you get your thrills ?

No, but it is part of how I earn a living. Something that you might be
able to do once you grow up. It had slipped my mind that September sees
an influx of moronic children onto Usenet every year as they flood back
to school. Thanks for reminding me.

 

[Hecate]

In many cases, 0 seconds. Most organisations using photographic media,
including many galleries, now accept digital prints as no different from
chemical prints as we speak.

And just to back you up on that, why does the poster you're replying
to think the Royal Photographic Society has a Digital Imaging Group?